Shared publicly  - 
Many Americans are struggling, but still believe in this country. They deserve a leader who believes in them

Larry Potter's profile photoPatrick Siu's profile photowithan panthong (Rachan)'s profile photoLinda Bowles's profile photo
I'm about ready to stop following +Mitt Romney. All you do is point out problems and then say it's +Barack Obama 's fault. WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO? I know what has already happened, what, other than cut programs to the poor and taxes to the rich are you going to do to help?
踩踩,路过·· ·We're enjoying the political show.Firstly,try to brag yourself.Secondly,try to blacken your opponent and to use every opportunity to gain the spot.At last,try to beautify the poll and to win the consortiums' support.百姓永远是政客的利用的对象啊···
everyone do yourself a favor and check out +Gary Johnson Libertarian party candidate, he'll be on the ballot in all 50 states. If you want to hear something different for once, you just might like what he has to say.
+Ben Handy You never were a supporter. Your problems with Romney show your prejudices. Those are partisan attacks, not the attacks of someone who hasn't actually already picked a side.
We will hear more about what the candidates propose we do for the economy when the press is more interested in that then the other stuff.
+Dale Burgess With their own websites & social media accounts, why can't politicians state what their policies are? The press can't report on policy if the candidates don't state what that policy is.
Lance G
Agreed +Dale Burgess . No problem with Mitt pointing out the problems with Obama's wreckovery. Since the death of the media in 2008, we can no longer rely on them to.

Specific plans will come down the pike.
+Brad Dillon Ron Paul has posted one post to his Google+ stream in months. I like the guy, but if he's active in social media, it isn't here.
+Warren Dew that is kind of a failure, his facebook is very active... too bad I deleted facebook... there's also seemingly thousands of user made groups and pages that promote his ideas so that helps but again they are moreso on facebook is quite active as well.
+Ben Handy +Michael Sweeney Mitt Romney's site has plenty of information on how he plans to fix this - lots more than fits into a sound bite. To provide some examples, getting rid of Obamacare will reduce the cost of creating jobs and thus result in more jobs, and tax reform to reduce rates and broaden the taxed base will also help by providing greater rewards to work. Go to his site for more details if you're really interested in how Romney plans to fix these problems.
+Brad Dillon I'm thinking that someone who objects to Obama's recent change on marriage and family is not going to be a huge fan of Gary Johnson.
+Warren Dew probably true... but I'll keep trying to remind people there are more than the two options they've likely had shoved down their throats, even to just hear the ideas of some of the other candidates is a positive experience.
All of you people who keep wanting them to give their policy ideas have never watched an election. They won't give specifics because if you give them too early it will ruin your chances. No matter what your positions it will anger someone so string them along until the election and then give specifics. Case in point people have seen Ron Paul's policies which is why no one votes for him.
+Nathan Daggett I wouldn't say "NO ONE" votes for him but his platform is out there... so is +Gary Johnson The part that makes some of what you say interesting is if an individual has a platform spelled out then the party wants to add / remove / modify things to their platform say, at the convention. As of right now many are encouraging Romney to incorporate some pieces of the Ron Paul platform to please his followers. Will they? I dunno, they will if they want people like me to even consider voting for him.
Well I should have said almost no one. But Mitt has all his policies on his web page also. And a Libertarian has no chance at election. I personally wouldn't mind a Libertarian but with the current electorate they have no chance at election.
I have faith in Romney. He has what it takes to turn the economy around, an obvious "people person" personality and good christian values as far as I can see. Obama wants to turn the U.S.A. into a modern "Sodom". Our country was founded as "One Nation under GOD". GOD is not down with gay marrige.. Thats why he made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Now if he can just give us an idea of what he is really going to do to get our troops home and Medicaid for the disadvantaged of this country. Solid solutions to those two problems would put the icing on the cake for my vote.
+Mud Flapp he surely isn't bringing the troops home... he's not shy about that.. he wants to increase the military..
and... people person? he's kind like a robot... if that's fun?
are good mormon values considered good christian values? I don't knock his religion, I don't care what religion you are (for the most part) as long as you're not trying to legislate by it or jam the values of it down my throat.
+Dane Weiss as long as people like you are always convinced that there are only two choices and spread that to everyone else, then there will be only two choices and you're part of the problem. If you like what we have to choose from then I guess that's fine, I personally, do not. There isn't much difference between the candidates that have been chosen for us.
Lol.. Actually I really cannot even vote. Convicted felon =). However, I can pray. The United States is suppose to be "One Nation under GOD"! Not "One Nation under Marry Poppins" like our friend Obama is as far as I can see treating it. Gay marrige? Foreign circus's with our secret service? Our American troops away from there families for another two or three years? Not my idea of leadership for my country for another four years. To each their own, though... Ciao
+Mud Flapp I'm with you on the troops and the failure of Obama at least! and it's def not one nation under mary poppins but... I'll leave it there :)
mitt you are a gay person hater love is love you klu klux klan member and this is what you love to say "i hate jews i hate negiers and i hate gays"
Who knows.. Maybe they will elect that Starr that everyones been following around D.C. lately. You know who I'm talking about? That guy that has something to do with quantum physics. M.I.T., C.I.A., other colleges and 90% of all D.C. get all spun around when he comes to D.C.. You shouldv'e seen em spinning last friday and saturday. Whew!
I agree.. Love is love! For all equally! But there is no love in war or politics! For sheezy, my neezy.
Mitt Romney - I understand how the economy works because I lived in it

Q: Despite your own private-sector experience, as you know, Massachusetts ranked only 47th in job creation during your tenure as governor.

A: I'm happy to take a look at the Massachusetts record, because when I came in as governor, we were in a real freefall. We were losing jobs every month. We had a budget that was way out of balance. We were able to turn around the job losses. At the end of four years, we had our unemployment rate down to 4.7%. The policies that will get us working again as a nation are policies I understand having worked in the private sector. Look, if I had spent my whole life in government, I wouldn't be running for president right now. My experience, having started enterprises, having helped other enterprises grow and thrive, is what gives me the experience to put together a plan to help restructure the basis of America's economic foundation so we can create jobs again. Our president doesn't understand how the economy works. I do, because I've lived in it.
Source: 2011 GOP debate in Simi Valley CA at the Reagan Library , Sep 7, 2011

2003: $500M budget cuts, including aid to cities

As he was sworn into office, the legislature overwhelmingly granted him extraordinary emergency budget-reduction powers. This was a job Romney was trained to do, for he relishes being left alone to swim around in a sea of numbers & data. When he emerged from the exercise two weeks later, he laid out his preliminary plan for closing the $650 million deficit by trimming a whopping $500 million from the state budget, including aid to cities & towns. Democrats were flabbergasted.

He had not raised taxes, although a few Democrats groused that he had imposed many new user fees, de facto taxes--ones that would hurt middle-income and poor families in the state. By the time he left office in 2006, Romney had balanced the budget over three consecutive years and generated revenue surpluses totaling $1.2 billion and resolving the $2-$3 billion shortfall he had inherited. This prompted him to boldly declare: "We have successfully closed the largest deficit in our state's history without raising taxes."
Source: An Inside Look, by R.B.Scott, p.110-111 , Nov 22, 2011
+Brad Dillon Realistically, there are only two choices in this election. To be honest, given how poorly Gary Johnson's Republican primary bid seems to have been managed, he would likely be ineffectual as president even if by some miracle he did get elected.

That said, the two party system is basically built in to our present system of electing presidents, anyway; the way things work now, a third party entry is always counterproductive because it acts as a spoiler. If you want more than two choices, you need to push for a change to approval voting, or to a parliamentary system where small parties can band together to form coalition majorities.

In the meantime, there is a way to choose between more than two presidential candidates: participate in the primaries. Especially when there is an unchallenged incumbent running, just think of the primary as the first round, and the general election as the runoff between the top two candidates from the first round.
I did participate in the primary, I'm a delegate alternate as well, but I'm also registered in a third party... what can I say, I like to play the field... and if we keep accepting it's only 2 parties it'll always be two parties of crap. First past the post helps keep it that way and the rules help keep it that way. Gary Johnson wasn't allowed in the debates originally because he didn't poll well enough according to CNN... well CNN didn't put him in the polls so it was impossible.
+Warren Dew is correct - there is a great deal of information on Romney's webb page that describes his plans in fairly specific terms. I just believe that he should blend more about his plans into his statements so that he does not come off as negative in the extreme.
he should at least talk about that... quit letting Obama change the tone to social issues and dwell on them... too many stupid voters that will decide based on just that, especially if it's all they hear. I'm not a big Romney supporter but he should be able to talk about the economy where Obama has his awful record to run on instead.
+Warren Dew Haven't we had a number of presidents that were elected outside of a 2 party system? Say... the first Republican president? Just because it hasn't happened in the last century, doesn't mean it can't happen.
+John Colby it sure has been a while... .the parties aren't even what they were a few decades ago though either...
The spoiling effect that +Warren Dew describes is pretty scary. If Ron Paul formed a third party, it would certainly result in Obama reelection. Better now to work within the system. Paul's delegates will certainly give him power and influence at the convention.
I might be happy with it if he gets enough "influence" but the GOP has been shutting him out all across the country so I'm not sure why they'd try to listen to him now...maybe?
some interesting polls with Obama / Romney / Johnson show Gary Johnson stealing more votes from Obama vs Romeny... hasn't been too many of these but it was not what people expected
I believe that as long as Obama and Romney slap at each other, the race will stay pretty even. Romney needs to explain his plans and how they will make us ALL better off. Explaining complicated concepts may be difficult, but its just a matter of leadership.
+Brad Dillon I think Ron Paul has actually done pretty well at getting his supporters into delegate slots. Many of the delegates pledged to Romney will be supporting Paul's positions on the platform and such.
+Warren Dew he most def has gotten quite a few delegates, what that will really mean, I guess we'll see, I might be one of them...
Neither Romney's nor Obama's plan will win the day. Because it is all proposed, not implemented, the winning argument will come down to a basic trust issue. If you trust the president and his track record built over the last 3+ years, you will vote for him. If you don't, you will look at Mitt Romney and vote for him (unless you think he is a crook or a nut). The final option is to use your vote as a protest towrds the people and process. Once a candidate wins, they will try and implement something and we will see what comes of it.
+John Colby The only times when the party system has changed in the U.S. have been when one party has become so dominant that it could split into two parties who were still the top two parties. In the case of the Republicans, they resulted from a split in the Democratic Republican party after the Whig party had basically evaporated. The Whigs themselves only came into existence after the Federalists evaporated.
+Warren Dew with all these social issues the (R)'s are going to evaporate unless they get the F over it...
+Brad Dillon I appreciate the honesty, integrity & ethics of gentlemen like RP, +Gary Johnson & BR, but I don't agree with most of their policy. I think they are going in the right direction, its just to far in my opinion (Gold Standard, nearly elimination of all depts, etc). I wish their were more moderates, with integrity, honesty & ethics in carrying out what they actually campaign on. Most campaign on certain issues, then pursue the agenda's of themselves & their largest donors, pushing legislation that is written by lobbyists & large donors.

I lay in the middle of both the dem & republican platforms. I think Govt needs to reform spending & cost structure, but we shouldn't be gutting programs while providing benefits/tax-cuts/Corp welfare while were doing it.

I think Govt should play a role in providing basic programs & basic social safety nets like Social Security (But programs like paying for cell-phones for low income individuals are programs the Govt shouldn't be doing)

Maybe I'm a misfit?
I disagree with the Dem's on throwing money at every problem (Govt doesn't need to fix every problem).

I think Republicans are to much into the rhetoric, while actively working against their constituents. Providing corporations & large donors the same type of welfare & spending that they want to cut from programs for average citizens I don't see republicans apply the same principles when it comes to the large donors, which seems hypocritical to me.
+Brad Dillon That's one of the reasons I like how Romney's focus is on the economy, now that the primary fights are no longer hot. You're right: a big tent means that people have to be tolerant of a few differences.
+Warren Dew from where I sit... even little social issues are a HUGE turn off to young people, especially those who don't know much about what to actually do about the economy... "hates gays, well forget that guy" it's sad but that's just how it is... I often hear girls with similar remarks more like "well he wants to touch my uterus so i'm voting for the other guy" ugh
+Michael Sweeney Your positions aren't that far from mine. I do wish we had a candidate that would have repudiated all the corporate bailouts, though Romney at least was against the GM/Chrysler bailouts.

To some extent Ron Paul's apparent positions are oversimplifications - if you really dig, it turns out that while he thinks the gold standard worked well, he does recognize there are practical issues and doesn't actually think that we should get rid of the Federal Reserve immediately. Unfortunately he pushed his oversimplifications pretty hard, which apparently attracted some supporters but left people like us cold.
+Warren Dew +Michael Sweeney Ron wants to 'audit' the fed, expose it really, and legalize competing currencies, let the market decide what it wants to do. The over simplification of END THE FED has def thrown people off a bit on his position... I own the book, it's not really what he means :)
His immediate elimination of the Federal Reserve is extreme. I do think that because of its huge impact on our economy, the Federal Reserve deliberations should be made public.
+Warren Dew I agree with the moderate Dem's goals on most issues, I just don't agree with the solutions (because again, the legislation ends up being written by those who provide the campaign funding) nor do I agree with the far-left/far-right in wanting to regulate personal choice.

That is an area I find highly hypocritical. Each extreme side of the parties swears the opposition wants to take away your choice (abortion, same-sex marriage, contraception, etc) yet they both institute legislation denying personal choice on varying issues. They are for personal choice when they agree with the issue and against personal choice when they disagree with the issue.
+Mike Arringdale You are mistaken, Ron Paul doesn't advocate the immediate end of the Federal Reserve. He advocates allowing for competing currencies in the market, namely by removing penalties and taxes for trading silver and gold allowing them to be used as currency if desired by the individual.
+Michael Sweeney This is why we need a government to do the least necessary. I heard someone advocating to raise taxes on certain foods to subsidize other foods. Just what we need - a food nanny for adults. This is part of the problem I have with the nationalization of healthcare. When I am on the hook to pay for your mistakes then I have a desire to make sure you don't make those bad decisions. We have to get over the idea that people need to live until 90. If someone wants to do things I think will kill them early, it should be their choice. Advocate for better choices, but let adults make them. But if their mistakes cause injury to others, then I say they should be shown no mercy.
+Dale Burgess someone is going to call you a heartless bastard!... or a republican or something... but I totally agree, I don't make all these horrible choices with my life, my education, my safety, my food, my savings, why do I have to subsidize everyone else who does? Oh because we're forced to that's why...
I think Republican and "HB" are synonymous in many peoples' eyes. There are certain things the government needs to do. But there are soooooo many things they do and regulate that common sense would suggest simply fall under the heading of "buyer beware".

I was just helping out today at a school and was in the lunchroom dismissing kids. One of the first had an unopened carton and I said "Come on, why don't you drink it - you obviously took it?" Her reply was, " I have to take it, but they don't make us drink it". That smacks of government all over. The kid doesn't like milk - maybe taught from her parents - but someone decided that she had to be force fed the milk. So we add that cost, but since we can't actually force her to drink it, there is no value. Government answer to this? Maybe hire someone to stand behind people and tell them they have to drink it.
nanny state.... people are too stupid, there oughta be a law right?
Well now things started out pretty good this morning but then the GOP and all it's Greed got out of Bed at NOON EST and the market went DOWN. Score one for the JUST SAY NO crowd.
Yep. I know people should get 8 hours sleep a night. To make sure they do, we will force everyone to be in their house by 10pm (under pain of torture) and then have a gas nozzle in every home making sure everyone is alseep. After all, it is for their own good.
+Brad Dillon so your telling me the third party candidate has a chance? Its a wasted vote...instill there's a viable third party excepted by the mainstream your pissing up stream...sorry dude that's reality ...
to be accepted people have to actually give them a chance, you don't seem to be doing that, so like i said, you're part of the problem, hope you like what we have, again, it's people like you that will make sure we're always stuck with it... just do what the tv says, don't worry it'll be fine...
+Mud Flapp if you move to a swing state and promise to vote democrat, I bet you can get registered. Call Mr. Axelrod.
Your a dreamer...and that cool but that's all it is...will always have Left / Right but its the independents like me that decide for us all...and that's reality
+Dane Weiss what does it matter that you're an independent? according to you I might as well be too, and I can still vote for whoever I want, my state has open primaries and of course you don't need to be party affiliated to vote in the general, hell you don't even have to be party affiliated to be a delegate to the convention...
Nobody hates people because they are poor. Poverty is a condition - it is not who someone is. What people get frustrated with is lazy people.
I once had a boss who said, "poor is a state of mind; lack of money is a temporary condition." I've never forgotten that. It's amazing the hustle I see among people who refuse to be poor.
+Thomas Terence Obama's biggest contributor in 08 was Goldman Sachs, in 2012 that's romney's sugar daddy... Obama did go on tv and felatiate Dimon, the JP Morgan CEO also... maybe he needs more money? Didn't seem that way last I looked...
+Dale Burgess The part that you are missing regarding heath care is that you are on the hook for the bad decisions other people make. When the french fry eating smoker winds up in the emergency room, he will get care, and someone will pay for it. Second, people with poor health habits are certainly a much heavier burden on medicare/medicaid and guess what... you are already paying for that too - and I haven't hear any politician talk about dismantling those programs (except, of course for Ron Paul).
+Brad Dillon Obama's campaign funding is ahead, but his PACs are not; thus his sucking up to the billionaires who can contribute to his PACs.
+Brad Dillon Agreed regarding the sensitivity to social issues on the part of young people - although I also think young people, being less cynical, may not look closely enough at what the politicians do when actually in office. For example, the Stupak amendment incorporated into Obamacare restricts reproductive choice much more than the ban on intact dilation and extraction does.

It really seems to me like the live and let live approach of keeping the government out of social issues, rather than dictating one side or the other, ought to be broadly acceptable - especially at the federal level. There seem to be a lot of extremists these days, though.
+Scott Saige That is one of the reasons why I am not keen on having the government take even more control over the healthcare system. I definitely understand the desire to control the behavior of others when you are paying their bills - As a father of four I have been doing it for years - "With my children". If we want to be adults, we have to accept that not everything will work out well, not every decision we make will be good AND that it is not the fault or concern of others. I am very interested in the government playing the role of honest broker - giving me unbiased information so I have what I need to make good decisions, but if I take that information and make a different decision, then I should suffer or benefit without their coercion.

The desire for more control over our lives needs to be thwarted - even if it has the best intentions (and it usually does).
+Orlando Muldoon I wish he really was. He efforts have been lip service and political attacks. Where is the actual legislation to curb the rogue behaviors? Pitting people against wealthy individuals may be politically wise, but it is not leading. If I could point to something real (not simply rhetorical) I would be more willing to give him credit for at least trying.
Imagine that. 23 million is also the entire human population of Australia.
+Dale Burgess I understand, but all the control you talk about is hypothetical. Medicare/Medicaid has been around for 47 years, currently serves around 80 Million people and costs close to a Trillion dollars when you include state funds. Yet, can you cite one instance of the government installing sleeping gas nozzles or forcing broccoli down any ones throats as a result? I'm not worried about America becoming a totalitarian state - it's just not in our DNA, but if I'm already paying for peoples mistakes, I'd rather do it in a controlled way that better ensure people don't fall through the net. My Mom taught school in a poor area and she noticed that it wasn't the poorest kids that had rotting teeth and were perpetually sick, it was the kids of the working poor who were trying but who didn't get insurance through their collection of part time jobs and couldn't afford health insurance, but who made just enough to be excluded from medicaid.
+Scott Saige you are incorrect. If my wife had been on Medicare/Medicaid then she would not have been able to breast feed one of our children. How is that for control? The saving grace was I petitioned my company and they added a different medication to the list of migraine medications they would've paid for. All of the others would've made my wife have to give up nursing. Those human situations don't work well with bureaucracies.

And your point about "If I am already paying for ..." IS MY POINT. The more we have to pay for each others stuff the more we feel the desire and right to tell them what to do. What pays for you? How much of your life do you feel should be dictated to you? If you haven't experienced it then you are on the side that imposes itself on others. Who should determine if I spank my child? Who should determine if I say the pledge of allegiance. Should you pay for me to belong to a health club because I don't want to pay and it is determined that it would benefit me to belong to one? The list is endless.

Will people suffer at times? Yes - do I think we should be heartless? No. But there is a lot of room between telling people SOL and taking de facto control of the entire healthcare system. My wife and daughter would not have had the same outcome in this new era.
How about Coffee, eggs, milk? All of these are vilified by certain people who believe they should hold sway over who gets them and in what amounts. Can't say I am interested in going there.

Listen to Mika Brzezinksi sometimes when she gets on this soapbox. Whether you agree with her analysis, it always sends a shiver down my spine when she starts talking about what is "good" for people.
+Dale Burgess The thing is, imo, regarding the concerns about Govt control, I really don't see a difference between the parties when it comes to exerting Govt control (The only difference is each party wants to regulate different parts of peoples lives) All the hoopla around Obamacare or Taxing food, yet Republicans are introducing bills for mandatory, medically unnecessary vaginal ultrasounds, legislation to ban common contraceptives, legislation & constitutional amendments to control who can get married/civil unions. Both parties want to legislate peoples lives where they shouldn't, it just depends on which issues the parties are gunning for.
+Dale Burgess I don't follow your logic. From what I gather the specific medication that you needed wasn't included in a medicaid plan - does that mean that the government is controlling you? Would the government stop you from exploring other options? Anyway, you aren't on medicaid, neither am I and unless something unforeseen happens, I won't be on any government subsidized health care plan - my company isn't planning any changes as a result of Obamacare. I wanted to know if you knew of specific policies enacted by the government related to health care that restricted your freedoms. Since the government is already paying out nearly a Trillion dollars a year, by your logic, they would already be deep in our business forcing us to live healthier lives. I just don't see it, but that might just be my experience.
+Michael Sweeney Is there a federal law imposing "sin" tax on food? I know that some localities, like SF have put in place some seriously invasive laws on happy meals and such, but am not aware of anything at the fed level. I agree with you and feel that the religious right contingent of the Republicans is the biggest threat to my freedoms, which is why I have a hard time voting for them. I don't think Mitt falls into this camp, but he needs their support so he plays along.
And, how does "loving to fire people" get these people back to work?
you suck romney hes just trying to clean up bush's mess
to bad morons don't know how to check facts. they want creeps like obama in office.
How can you call this the "Obama economy"? +Mitt Romney Himself said that this economy wasn't his fault. The fact is, he inherited this economy from Bush. It was the policies of the GOP that got us into this mess.
23 million, that number is too high for the American people It is time to kick butt and elect a President that can change; Mitt Romney President Elect 2013 is the man Vote this year !!!
if obama gets a second term ( heaven forbid. ) at the end of a second term there will be no America. nuff said.
Susan B
What is happening to our country????
Not being able to fix all the problems left to him by the Bush administration is NOT the same thing as destroying America. If you want to destroy America put another right-wing religious nutcase in the white house. if not VOTE OBAMA!!!!!
Today, twenty-three million Americans are out of work, underemployed, or have stopped looking for work because big business knows employees cut into bottom line profits and corporate bonuses.
Today, twenty-three million Americans are out of work, underemployed, or have stopped looking for work because the tax breaks given to business to keep jobs in America went to bonuses for corporate executives.
Today, twenty-three million Americans are out of work, underemployed, or have stopped looking for work because Wall Street and Commodity Futures have manipulated the the earning power of whatever is left of the American work force for their own greed and gain.
Today, twenty-three million Americans are out of work, underemployed, or have stopped looking for work because venture capitalist companies like Romney's Bain Capitol have put hundreds of thousands of people out of work, then act like they did somebody a favor by hiring some of them back at just above minimum wage.
Today, twenty-three million Americans are out of work, underemployed, or have stopped looking for work because of the failed economies that have gone on since 1928 when Herbert Hoover said
"a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage"
In 1835, President Andrew Jackson, PAID OFF THE NATIONAL DEBT, IN FULL AND HAD A SURPLUS. It took exactly one year for the politicians in the Senate and Congress and the National Bank to put us back into an ever growing debt that will probably never ever ever be paid off.
Now, 176 years later, there's a bunch of rose-glass wearing day dreamers who seem to think Obama put us here and Romney can get us out. You all have a dim bulb in the chandelier of your mind.
In 2011, the "average Joe" CEO made $9.6 million and the top 10 made a combined $504.4 million. THAT NEVER would have happened if the 23 million unemployed had a job. BUT, if corporate CEO's took a 2% decrease in base pay, not only would they all still make millions of dollars, it could put those 23 million to work for one year. That federal tax revenue would certainly have an impact on the national debt.
I'm not sold on Obama getting 4 more years, but I am positive Mitt Romney is NOT the answer.
Come November, vote wisely, my fellow Americans.
Conquer China and free the people oppressed by the so-called "Communist Party", then send the unemployed U.S. citizens there to exploit the resources.  Problem solved.

To this end, I think Romney would do a better job.
Mitt, Obama never accomplished anything on his won without government assistance, he does not under US economy.
Add a comment...